Oligo

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 17 2002,17:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, YES! Let Ĺland join Sweden! <span id='postcolor'> The point is that they don't WANT to join Sweden, because you wouldn't give them any of the benefits they get from us. That's why we should kick them out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 17 2002,18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the palestinians just want us to pull out all the way back to europe and the US. thats all. it seems you are all thinking in too western terms ppl. if no one understood it, the idea is to kick us outa here, if not why didnt they accept Baraks proposal? he gave em literally all they wanted! and another question: when they'll start shelling us across the border, who will take care of them? the UN? just like they are doion now in Lebanon? thats what give this plan a low prioroty for now.<span id='postcolor'> If you pull-out from the occupied areas, you'll secure total support from the international community. Then you'll be the GOOD guys and they'll be the BAD guys. Israelis with their western values and manners are far more marketable to public than the other side, so in an event of a pull-out, there will be an enormous popularity bounce for you. It's only your current lebensraum policies that have annoyed some of the euros. If the arabs shell you across the border, you strike back with arty and planes. Bomb the shit out of all military targets you can find. Nobody is going to whine, since you have the backing of the whole international community. I don't really see how it could be worse than the current situation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 17 2002,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i dont mind give back most of the west bank and the gaza strip, because i basicly think that either u make em citizens or give em to rule themselves. but an offer of this kind WAS offered in Sep. 2000 and was rejected by Arafat. what do u want us to do? to force him to accept it? why dont YOU force him to accept it. in its essnce its the same offer the Saudis made. and to add a twist: im ready to give back ALL the territories to Egypt and Jordan, mind u, they are the countries we took this land from. isnt it strange that they werent enthusiastic to do it? here comes another question: if the Arab world cares so much for the palestinians why didnt they make a country right after '48?<span id='postcolor'> I'll tell you what to do, it's simple. Arafat has no say in the matter, if you decide to give back the land: Basically you just pull back all your troops and citizens (you know the settlers) from the occupied territories. Then you put your troops to guard the border airtightly and require visas from anybody coming from outside U.S. and other countries you like. Getting a visa can be as hard as you decide and requiring a visa is a perfectly legit thing to do. You make an international declaration that you give up the control and resposibility of West bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights and that you don't really care what the arabs do with them. Let them decide. You wash your hands of the mess and mop up the few terrorists remaining inside Israel proper. Brilliant! If you pull off this stunt, I for one am going to vote you to be one of the best countries in the world. I would actually want to use this same tactic in Finland as well. We have this small archipelago thing called Ahvenanmaa. The citizens of this archipelago are all swedish speaking and their soul is in Sweden, to put it lightly. They have a limited autonomy, they don't have to serve in the army (we still have to defend them), they hate all finns who cannot even own land there and the tax flow is from the mainland to Ahvenanmaa (we pay their shit). Since they have all the benefits and no drawbacks, they are more than happy with the Status Quo. So what I would like to do is force an independence (or whatever, let them join Sweden) upon them. We just pull out all our officials and set up a border between the mainland and Ahvenanmaa. Then we just call the local officials and say: 'By the way, you're now independent, we recognize it, have fun. can we set up an embassy?' I'd love to see their faces after that.

You shouldn't blame the U.S. public too much, since more people did vote for Gore than Bush. It's just that U.S. election system considers the votes given by the citizens of certain states to be more important than the ones given by citizens of other states. Thus, over half of the U.S. population did not vote for Bush and so are not to blame for his idiotic actions.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 17 2002,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oligo! here is a site concerning the Six Day war. u can say its biased but there are many facts u can always check in the US congress archives and UN archives. shalem<span id='postcolor'> I have read about the 6 day war from the IDF website, so I don't think it was pro-arab biased? And I agree the arabs were asking for it. Anyway, humiliating people is not very wise in the long run.

Yeah well the point of my post was really not to place blame on the Six Day War on anybody, but I can see why somebody might think so. The point was that if you occupy some territory even in a justified war (like the allies did in the end of WWII), placing settlements on the occupied land is bound to raise some heat like Albert so nicely pointed out happened after WWI. Even if you win a war, you have to be gracious and not humiliate the enemy too much. As long as you stay in West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights colonizing land, people are going to think that you are criminally occupying land belonging to other people. Give those places up and the opinion will swing to your favour. You don't need that land for survival of your nation, since you can pretty much kick all the surrounding arab countries ten times over. The maps are not very important (although the link works for me), but they basically show the land you had before 6 day war. This land (actually a little less) was agreed to be yours in the U.N. resolution, which you should stick to for legitimacys sake.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ April 17 2002,15:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I get it now, first you start with dots ... Then you move along to dashes ---- Then, when you have mastered the dot and dash, you go ahead with the vertical dash | | | | Then, with diagonal dashes / / / / Then, diagonal dashes the other way \ \ \ \ Then, you try with semi circles C C C C Then, full circles O O O O<span id='postcolor'> And then you can write: | ()\/\/|\|Z U @||, C()Z |'|\/| |eet h@)(()r... I'm already looking forward to his posts.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 17 2002,15:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">do u mean the settlement Tel-Aviv? or Hadera too? were these settlements u relate to were built on ground that was taken recently? and if they arent being moved, and no one takes their place, it takes some of the sting of youor claim, leaving u with some hollow propaganda stuff<span id='postcolor'> Do you mean what is your land and what is theirs? That's simple enough to answer. See here: Some maps. The land that is yours legally is shown under the headline '1947 United Nations Partition Plan' or even under headline '1948-1949 War'. West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights are occupied by you, taken in a war which you began with an offensive (they were threatening you I know, but it was you who escalated to full hostilities with your pre-emptive attack). Placing settlers in occupied areas means that you intend to get the land for yourselves permanently. Now I know that everybody thinks that Six Day War was fought to secure the existence of Israel. But could an additional motive have been the confiscation of some more land for Israel? More lebensraum? If this was the case, I'm sure Israel would never admit it. Once again, I refer to the occupation of Germany after WWII. What would have happened if the occupying powers started putting settlements on german soil? French settlers in Berlin bulldozing german buildings and buildings theirs instead? Ze germans would have been seriously pissed.

The Three Levels of Taking a Dump In The Field (suckiness increases downwards): 1. Reikäpaska (Taking a crap into a hole) 2. Riukupaska (Taking a crap while sitting on a plank) 3. Sissipaska (Taking a crap the way nature intended) When in the field in semi-permanent basis, somebody might have the vitality to construct an actual outhouse or a similar thing where you can happily shit through a hole while comfortably sitting down (Reikäpaska). You can even read magazines while unloading. Notice that your hands are free for shooting (or holding the magazine). In normal field conditions, somebody might go through the effort of placing a suitable plank on some supports creating an apparatus allowing you to take a shit while sitting on the plank (Riukupaska). This is still pretty comfortable, but reading magazines is maybe taking it too far. Note that your hands are free for shooting. Also note that fallen tree trunks are excellent ready-to-use substitutes for the plank. If you really have to take a shit and there are no facilities around, you just have to GO (Sissipaska). Human physiology is flexible enough to allow you to take a dump while crouching down without actually soiling your buttocks. Just be careful to keep your arse off the ground and keep a proper angle in order to avoid crapping on your johnson. I suggest anybody joining the armed forces practice this mode of crapping, since it is the most versatile (but unfortunately also the most repugnant) way. Note that this method of crapping leaves your hands free to engage the enemy while unloading. Hugging trees or such methods of crapping are dangerous to your health, since they do not leave your hands free to engage the incidious enemy, who of course are attacks always when you're taking a dump. There just isn't anything sacred for those people.

Why the hell do you use UZIs for anything else but CQB? Taking a submahinegun to an assault rifle battle outdoors is real Military Stupidity.

Quoting Albert: "Why did you put it all into Italic? Was tough to read!" To point out that the text was not written by me. Sorry if it was rough on your binoculars. "I dont realy like the comment, even though it might be from a well reputed magazine such as TIME. I dont like when journalists play through a whole war-scenario, how wrong can it go?" The author of the article was not a journalist proper, but a military analyst. And I hope you noticed he didn't absolutely predict the outcome of the worst case scenario, he just estimated the odds against the arabs to be quite bad. "There are too many factors in the equation that just can go wrong! Furthermore I think you cannot calculate war by saying: okay we got 1000 tanks on the left side and 500 on the right side, but the right side can kick 3 before it gets kicked, so the right side wins! " In the last wars, the israelis have always kicked all the surrounding arabs around. Now that the balance of force is even more on the israeli side, which way would you bet the scale of war would tip in a new conflict? "That is a silly estimation. Furthermore I think it is a total missuse to estimate the presence and possible impact of Anthrax (I think he/she slightly downplays its power.)" As I have pointed out earlier, Anthrax probably IS a lesser threat than depicted by media, as judged from the ACTUAL events where Anthrax has been released into populated areas and not from flawed simulations. "One of the reasons is that war-material doesnt queue up to fight one against one. In WWII the russians often send thousands of soldiers just to 'entertain' the germans while attacking elsewhere. The same could be done with Israels airforce too." If this was the russians facing off against Israelis, I wouldn't bet anything on either side. But the performance of the arab troops in the region has been abysmal at best in the past. And I think the arab leaders know this, thus I don't really see any danger to the existence of Israel (except maybe in Sharon's paranoid mind). "My thesis therefore is: Israel could face a war with one country, but would not be capable to face the Arab world on a multi-country front, especially not if seen in the long term! I agree though that the arab armies are a bunch of .....XXX.....; Big numbers but small reality!" Israel is not going to face arab armies as in defence. In the event of arab buildup, Israel is going to launch a pre-emptive strike and wipe the offending armies off the face of the Jane's Defence Review. Besides, Israel probably has nukes. They're perfectly safe from extermination. Sharon is only playing the old fears to get what he wants.

I doubt Israel is in any real existential danger anymore, because IDF is really strong today. A few suicide bombings of civilians do not bring down a nation. Here is something from Time magazine, in my opinion it is quite a sound analysis of the military situation: How would it begin? In one grim scenario, it would start with Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, who is in the most exposed position of all. His controlled media have long been replete with fervent anti-Israeli propaganda in a deliberate attempt to deflect attention from corruption and mismanagement at home. Endless television replays of the most brutal scenes of the Israeli occupation have hammered home the message that Egypt's most urgent concern is the plight of the Palestinians. At the same time, what is still a military-based regime justifies large expenditures on the armed forces amid extreme poverty by boasting of their strength. Mubarak therefore risks becoming the prisoner of his own propaganda: If Palestine is all-important and Egypt that strong, why not use its strength against the Israelis? The least dangerous Egyptian move would be disastrous in its consequences. Violating Anwar Sadat's peace treaty, cutting itself off from vital U.S. aid, the Egyptian army could send part of its vast forces--say, the four tank divisions and eight mechanized divisions with 1,600 battle tanks, including first-line U.S. M1A1s--into the Sinai peninsula to threaten the Israeli frontier. Compelling the Israelis to mobilize their own army, which would very likely freeze any further action against the Palestinians, would make sense as a piece of military gamesmanship. But strategically it would be catastrophic, because if the Egyptians acted, Syria's young and insecure President Bashar Assad would most likely feel compelled to compete with them by sending his own armored forces--seven divisions with 2,000 tanks--to threaten the Golan frontier. And then even King Abdullah of Jordan, who greatly values his peace treaty with Israel, might come under irresistible pressure from his Palestinian subjects to send his two armored and two mechanized divisions, equipped with some 700 tanks, opposite the Jordanian frontier. None of this need be done with any intention of actually fighting to provoke a war nonetheless. Other Arab governments could be propelled by a mounting spiral of popular enthusiasm to send their own forces to reinforce the frontline states. That would cue Saddam Hussein to demand his opportunity to send armored forces to threaten Israel by marching through Jordan or Syria or both. The King of Jordan would dread such contaminating assistance in his territory, and Assad of Syria too would fear it, but if the rhetorical escalation of the leaders and popular agitation heat up the climate, it might become impossible to deny passage to Iraqi forces in part because they might bring with them the chemical or even biological weapons that evoke the special enthusiasm of Hamas and other fundamentalists. Finally, there is the Hizballah militia in southern Lebanon, already deployed close to Israel's northern frontier with hundreds of bombardment rockets ready to strike as far away as the port city of Haifa. Competing mobilizations amid mounting waves of popular enthusiasm would be a direct replay of what happened in 1967, which back then triggered humiliating Arab military defeats and the Israeli occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, which still endures. For that very reason the scenario might seem exceedingly improbable. As the frequent references to 7th century events in political speeches show, Arabs have excellent historical memories. Even those born after 1967 know the story very well. Certainly each government has powerful reasons to refrain from anything more than diplomatic protests even if Arafat is killed. Egypt would lose the U.S. aid that pays for the very weapons it would deploy ($2 billion a year) and for much of its daily bread. Jordan is likewise dependent, Syria's equipment is too outdated to risk war, and even Saddam Hussein can hardly threaten Israel with ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction whose existence he strenuously denies. But madness is rare only among individuals. It is quite common in entire nations. The Israelis themselves might reasonably be said to be mad to think they can have a tranquil occupation of Palestinian areas--actually they are merely split down the middle between those who have long wanted to withdraw and those who think land is more important than peace. As for the Arab leaders, what might cause them to behave irrationally is their lack of legitimacy--nobody elected them, very few of their subjects respect their competence, and lately many are seen as the slavish stooges of the U.S. If the Arab-buildup scenario came to pass, the Israelis would be forced to mobilize some 425,000 reservists to staff their armed forces, a large part of their entire able-bodied population. Because it would paralyze their economy and indeed society as a whole, mobilization cannot last much more than a few weeks at most. Unless diplomatic pressure induces the Arab forces to withdraw again, the Israelis would attack to force them into flight or destroy them, as in 1967. But for the Israelis such a war would not be a repeat of 1967. Since then, the military balance has moved greatly in favor of Israel. Almost useless in stopping suicide bombers, downright clumsy in facing stone-throwing teenagers, the Israeli armed forces are much better at doing what they are trained and equipped to do: smash regular forces with superior firepower and skill. With some 400 first-line strike aircraft and a large inventory of guided weapons (Israel is a major producer and exporter), they have a combination of weapon loads and accuracy that would be devastating to Arab ground forces. If Arab air forces were to intervene to protect them, it is believed that the Israelis would shoot down at least 30 aircraft for each loss of their own (in 1982 they scored 80-0 against the Syrians). The Israeli army's 11 armored divisions would be outnumbered, but Israeli armored columns are trained to move significantly faster than their enemies, to outmaneuver them if the terrain allows, while their gunnery--100% the product of female instructors--is thought to be far superior. The Israelis would have no surefire way of stopping the Hizballah from launching its huge inventory of Iranian-supplied bombardment rockets at the villages and cities of northern Israel. Although grossly inaccurate, they would still inflict damage. Syria also has hundreds of bombardment rockets, some with chemical warheads, but unlike the Hizballah guerrillas, it must fear Israeli retaliation. No Arab air force is likely to be much of a threat to Israeli cities, while if Saddam Hussein chooses to blow his cover by launching the handful of ballistic missiles he has kept hidden all these years, they are unlikely to do much damage. In 1991 the 50 Scud missiles fired into Israel frightened many but killed nobody. Even if Iraqi missiles have nerve gas or anthrax warheads, they are unlikely to kill more than a few. The theoretical potency of agents like VX--one tiny drop kills--or anthrax is defeated by the mechanics of distribution and dilution. A missile warhead would have to open up to release its cargo on top of a crowd to kill many, and that is a far more advanced capability than Saddam Hussein could possibly have. But, of course, even a splendid victory would be disastrous for Israel, because at great expense in wealth and blood, it would gain nothing in the aftermath that it did not have before the current crisis: safety from invasion. And any outcome at all would be disastrous for Western and especially American interests. Nobody can even bear to contemplate an utterly improbable Israeli defeat. But if Arab leaders are humiliatingly defeated, the most likely outcome of a war, the fundamentalists would have their first real chance of coming to power. Arafat's ineffectual strategy and utter recklessness have thus caused a crisis that induces all, even the Israelis, to wish him a long life, for his death might precipitate the most damaging of wars.

When I was serving in the military, we had a lot of time on our hands with nothing to do during field exercises. I used to fill that time by making wooden sculptures with my knife. One time I carved a life-size sculpture of a dick, you know, a johnson. But instead of throwing it away like I usually did, I hung this wooden dick from my combat webbing by a piece of cord. I guess I wanted to know how long it was allowed to be there by the officers, being the little troublemaker I am. For some reason, nobody for a long time said anything, even in inspections. I suspect that they just never noticed the thing. But one time during an exercise, we were lined up for a general to inspect. He walked along the ranks, but when he walked past me, he stopped and stared at me. "What the hell is that thing hanging in your combat webbing", he asked. It was really hard, but I managed to keep a perfectly soldierly face and replied with a soldierly voice: "Sir, it's a wooden penis!" Full ten seconds passed and I could see the gears in the general's head turning. Apparently he didn't figure out anything to say, so he just continued his inspection. We had a hell of a laugh afterwards with the blokes... Oh, yeah, I got some serious hazing from the officers afterwards.

I just remembered that when I went to the army, they gave us a small, green (of course), plastic container with a single condom in it. On the container it was printed: "Lataa ja varmista!" which means something like "Load you weapon and turn on the safety catch." I think the english equivalent is "Lock and load!", if I am not mistaken. Anyway, it was hilarious as hell. I guess they were 'concerned' about us, wanting to make sure we don't get any VDs if we actually managed to score some poontang during leave. I'm surprised the container didn't have a camo pattern.

It doesn't take long to learn that all the shit comes from the army and all the good stuff you have to get yourself. Don't expect them to give you any candy or porn or such things to ease your existence in the field. Makes you wonder why at least some money is not used to uplift the morale of the troops. Oh, I remember, they do spend money on 'uplifting' the morale, but those things they organize usually suck even more than existence without. Man, they should have Military Issue candy, porn, toilet paper, etc.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ April 15 2002,12:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They must teach you some skills that are in the military. I always thought that the military learns all sort of useful things about how to do these things and all sorts of neat tricks.<span id='postcolor'> You thought wrong. All the nice tricks are best learned from your fellow privates. At least that's the way it was when i served. It's funny but they never issued us any toilet paper either, Denoir. We had to confiscate it from the barracks. Makes you wonder whether they expect you to wipe with your hands?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 12 2002,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But anyway what about RYAN was correct?<span id='postcolor'> I'd say nothing in Saving Private Ryan was correct.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 12 2002,15:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now the Gulf War is not the best example! Air superiority however does NOT change the situation in a great way as you know from the Gulf war or the ethnical conflict in Jugoslawia. Ground superiority is what counts! The Iraq as well as Jugoslawia were bombed back to stone-age but the deciding battles were fought by tanks (or in the case of Jugoslawia by mechanised infantry! But this could still be discussed. But what could not be discussed, (from a German perspective) is the risk you take when opening a war-front to the South the North and the East at the same time. Technology is not the determining facotr then. Without a Blitzkrieg a situation like this cannot be solved. Since an offensive war (e.g Blitzkrieg) is out of question for Israel I wonder what would happen. But this is going to far<span id='postcolor'> Air superiority is everything when two conventional force armies are facing off. Planes are just excellent for taking out large armored formations. And by taking out I don't mean blow up every tank, but destroy the means and will to fight. An armored column without fuel, ammo and tank crews is useless. That's what the yanks did to the Iraqis in Gulf War and that's what the Israelis will do to the arab armies if they threaten Israel. This brings me to an another point. If such an escalation was to happen, the Israelis would not necessarily wait for an attack by the arabs. There is a saying: "An attack is the best defence."

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hilandor @ April 12 2002,11:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">this is different because we are now in the 21st century, yes i agree with what u say but these things generally took place hundreds of years ago. Â basically before people had a vote and a say and there was diplomatic methods to sorting stuff like this out.<span id='postcolor'> The palestinians have neither vote nor say in the matters. All they can do is shout, throw rocks and suicide bomb.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (second_draw @ April 12 2002,10:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't under estimate land in political issues. Land is a very important to a country especially when you're a small country like isreal. It will take a he11 of alot more than suicide bombing to make isreal give up prized land<span id='postcolor'> Maybe so, but it seems that the palestinians have been so humiliated that they have to use whatever means available to show defiance. It might not get them their country, but at least they get some publicity for their cause. In desperate situations people use desperate means rather than give up the fight. This has been seen so many times in history and this will continue to happen in the future also. The humiliation of a defeat is worse than suicide for these people.

Hah. Do you think somebody would listen to them if they did nothing? The only reason anybody cares about them at all is that they can make some ripples in the water with the suicide bombing. Such is this world.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 12 2002,10:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">More importantly, if the Palestinians got a nation of their own but continued to bomb, then Israel would without a doubt have the full support of Europe and the US.<span id='postcolor'> Exactly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 12 2002,09:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the case of france, i didnt say it is the view of the general public but we dont see any action the government of france did other then condemn the attacks, u didnt see any jews burning mousqes in france after suicide bombing, did you? with france any way its quite a long story ever since 1965.<span id='postcolor'> The French authorities condemned the anti-semitic attacks. Also, the local police is investigating the bombings in order to catch the perpetrators. Then a court of law will judge them to jail if found guilty. What more should a civilized nation do? Bomb the arab neighbourhoods?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ April 12 2002,08:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even giving the Palenstinians their own state wouldn't stop the suicide bombing against Isreal. Just take the IRA for example. They started off fighting for independence of Ireland. Now all they would have to do is call a referendum, but they continue (their splinter groups at least) bombing because they've grown accustomed to it.<span id='postcolor'> A palestinian state would probably not stop the suicide bombings entirely, since there are always some nutjobs left, but it would reduce them to a trickle instead of the flood we have now. You have to remember that the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade which is responsible for most of the current bombings has stated it's goal is to get a state and that's it. Of course they could just be bullshitting people, hard to say. But the other organizations like Hamas have stated directly that their goal is the destruction of Israel. Anyway, once the palestinians have their own state, it's very hard to recruit people to commit suicide. At the moment, recruiting is not hard at all, because they want that state.

How about stopping slamming in those stimulants, Wobble?